Skip to main content

About this Show

The Rachel Maddow Show

News/Business. (2013)

NETWORK

DURATION
01:00:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Virtual Ch. 787 (MSNBC HD)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
1920

PIXEL HEIGHT
1080

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Debbie Halvorson 13, U.s. 13, Nra 9, Israel 8, Us 7, Wayne Lapierre 6, Lebanon 6, Massachusetts 5, Jesse Jackson 4, Gabby Giffords 4, Iran 4, Hezbollah 4, Bob Menendez 3, Chris Christie 3, Stephen Lynch 3, Scott Brown 3, Deval Patrick 3, Halvorson 3, Washington 3, Mark Kelly 2,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  MSNBC    The Rachel Maddow Show    News/Business.  (2013)  

    January 31, 2013
    1:00 - 2:00am PST  

1:00am
illnesses and diseases. so when you have nurse practitioners that can go into home and educate first-time mothers about how to take care of their children, how to care for them and feed them, when we eliminate those services, later on in life we will have chronic defenses that we will have to deal with and that will increase health costs over time. we're looking at a short-term fix, but i think it's going to be a long-term problem. >> doctors have to really be committed to see these patients, because it might force some doctors not to take medicaid patients at all, or is that a stretch? what do you think? >> it's not a stretch, ed. and not just medicaid, but also medicare. three years ago, i would refer several patients to some specialists in the area, and they were no longer taking new medicare patients. and now with threats for reimbursement with medicare and medicaid, many of my colleagues are not taking either insurance. so the primary physicians are stuck with trying to manage chronic illnesses and diseases that are quite difficult when you need endocrinologists and
1:01am
obgyns in referring out for specialists and help. everyone i know that is a physician went into this field to help people. that's why i participate with the national association of free clinics. we want to help people. we want to save lives. >> we need more dr. rani whitfields in this country. god bless you for what you're doing and thanks for joining us. that's "the ed show." i'm ed schultz. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> good evening and thank you for joining us at home this hour. on the eve of the start of his second term, president obama announced that he would spend this term at least in part on an issue commonly believed to be among the heaviest lifts in all of american politics. he said he would do something about gun violence. now the president can create certain changes by himself with his executive authority. he can make changes, not laws. he cannot change laws, but he can change things that the
1:02am
administration is responsible for itself. for big changes, though, for real reform, the president needs congress to pass new laws, and that's where the real political heavy lifting comes in. to do that political heavy lifting, the white house announced a new political strategy, or at least a new political tactic to try to get this done. the 2012 obama/biden reelection campaign would morph itself into an advocacy group, a powerful democratic grassroots activism machine. the old campaign would transfer to this new group its vast database of information about obama supporters, about voters. and then the new group would mobilize supporters to mobilize the president's agenda now, the same way they supported him all the way into the white house last year. this new group, organizing for action, is a new phenomenon in politics. this has not been done before. and a group like this could be a fearsome and unique tool if it works in politics the way its organizers expect it to work. we reported the other night that when the folks at organizing for action put out their very first
1:03am
e-mail solicitation on a policy issue, they picked gun reform as the issue. they urged those millions of voters on their contact list to call their member of congress immediately, and to tell their member of congress to back the president's proposal on gun reform. and this call your congressman right now e-mail went out at 4:26 p.m. on a friday afternoon, on a friday afternoon specifically when neither the house nor the senate was in session. hello? hello? anybody there? if a voice mail falls in the empty capitol, maybe the light on the phone still blinks, at least? yeah. so that happened on friday. an inauspicious beginning for the president's mighty, mighty new political operation, for them launching their big grassroots push for gun reform, which is otherwise seen through traditional means as being something that is almost impossible to get. that was friday. today, look at this. if you go looking for the president's new organizing
1:04am
group, if you go looking for organizing for action online, so you get online and you type into your browser, say, "organizingforaction.net", if you type that into your browser what you find is you land on the nra home page. you get redirected to the national rifle association, to the opposite side of the gun reform argument. and that is because organizing for action failed to register their own natural domain names when they launched. the website tech president noticed this on monday. organizing for action failed to get organizingforaction.net, organizingforaction.org or organizingforaction.com. so all of those sites have been swooped by republicans and nra supporters. seriously? yeah. come on now, wow. but in the department of clouds and silver linings, if these embarrassing early fails from supposedly the greatest political geniuses on earth, if these failures are kind of a cloud when it comes to the prospects for gun reform, around this cloud is also a silver lining, and her name is debbie
1:05am
halvorson. debbie halvorson is a democrat from illinois. she used to serve as majority of the state senate and then spent two years in congress. but now that jesse jackson jr. has resigned, debbie halvorson is one of many democrats who have thrown their hats into the ring to try to replace jesse jackson jr. she is not alone. it's five republicans already in the running for the seat, and debbie halvorson started out as 1 of 17 democrats running. there is a lot of people in this field. the primary is going to be next month. but because debbie halvorson has previously served in congress, because she has national, or excuse me, district-wide name recognition because of her high-profile role in the state legislature previously, debbie halvorson was instantly pretty widely thought to have a good shot at winning that very, very, very crowded primary for jesse jackson's seat.
1:06am
but it should be noted that debbie halvorson is not your usual illinois democrat. she comes with an "a" rating and previous endorsements from the national rifle association, from the nra. a few days ago, she told politico that she knows that voters in this majority african-american, heavily democratic chicago district are not all that big on the nra, but she said, quote, i'm not willing to change my stance. so debbie halvorson not budging on gun reform, not giving in to public pressure. she is nra all the way. and then debbie halvorson met this public pressure. >> in the race to replace jesse jackson, watch out for debbie halvorson. when she was in congress before, halvorson got an "a" from the nra. the nra, against comprehensive background checks, against banning deadly assault weapons, against banning high hawaii capacity ammunition clips. halvorson even sponsored a bill that would allow some criminals to carry loaded guns across state lines. debbie halvorson. when it comes to promoting gun
1:07am
violence, she gets an f. >> that ad, that pressure ad comes from new york city mayor michael bloomberg's pro-gun reform superpac. it's part of his campaign to build support in congress for meaningful national gun reform. and you know what? it appears to be working. once that ad started running in her district, debbie halvorson, who had said she would not be moved on this issue, debbie halvorson moved on this issue. ms. halvorson telling buzzfeed, quote, my win will not be a victory for the nra. how can it be a victory for the nra when i'm for universal background checks, beefing up the database, going after straw buyers and making sure we register our guns. those are not things the nra wants. that's true. those are not things the nra wants. and that is probably going to make it hard to hold on to that nra "a" rating. but maybe that's not the most important thing in the world anymore? in the debate over gun policy and gun laws, we are supposed to
1:08am
believe that the only real pressure on this issue comes from the nra, who of course always push against reform. but there is pressure on the other side, and it apparently works just as well, and it's not just michael bloomberg's pac. we reported recently on new democratic senator heidi heitkamp. well, the coalition to start gun violence started running these ads in washington, d.c. and back home in north dakota, calling senator heitkamp out for having said that. senator heitkamp then issued a statement clarifying her feelings, saying, quote, all options must be on the table when it comes to addressing gun violence in america. heidi heitkamp responding to pressure, just the way debbie "not budging" halvorson responded to pressure when she discovered a sudden new-found willingness to advocate for background checks for guns, nra be damned. pressure worked. pressure works. pressure works not just for the
1:09am
nra, but for the other side too. well, today in washington, the senate judiciary committee convened a hearing, a very high profile hearing with a title that was ambitiously broad, "what should we do about gun violence?" five witnesses on both sides of the issue offered expert testimony. those witnesses included nra executive vice president wayne lapierre, naturally. wayne is always there. but also james johnson, the chief of police of baltimore county, and captain mark kelly, astronaut, navy veteran, and the husband of congresswoman gabby giffords. gabby giffords, of course, was shot in the head by a mentally ill gunman in an assassination attempt in january 2011. today in an emotionally charged and at times contentious testimony, the most moving part of the day happen right at the very beginning with a surprise addition to the witness list as gabby giffords herself made her way down the aisle into the hearing room to deliver a short statement to the senators and the assembled media and the audience. this was a surprise today.
1:10am
it was clear that this was not >> okay. thank you for inviting me here today. this is an important conversation for our children, for our communities, for democrats and republicans. speaking is difficult, but i need to say something important. violence is a big problem. too many children are dying. too many children. we must do something.
1:11am
it will be hard, but the time is now. you must act. be bold, be courageous. americans are counting on you. thank you. >> "americans are counting on you." congresswoman gabby giffords speaking today before the senate judiciary committee. when gabby giffords' husband spoke after she did, he talked about he and gabby both being gun owners themselves, talked about both being people who are pro-gun ownership, but he said that reform is necessary within the bounds of the second amendment that you can be both pro-gun ownership and pro-gun safety reform. specifically, captain mark kelly said our number one priority as a country should be to fix the background check system for buying guns. when people talk about the broken background check system, they're talking about the fact
1:12am
that if you buy a gun at a gun show, or through a private sale, just person to person, you're not required to go through a background check. if you buy from a licensed gun dealer, the law says you do need a background check. but 40% of the guns sold this country aren't sold that way. so our background check system is not really much of a system at all. and don't take it from me. you can take it from the baltimore county chief of police. >> on behalf of my colleagues across the nation, i'm here today to tell you that we are long overdue in strengthening our nation's gun laws. the organizations and the national law enforcement partnership to prevent gun violence urgently call on you to require background checks for all firearms purchased. federal law prohibits dangerous individuals such as convicted felons and those with mental health disqualifiers from possessing firearms. while background checks are required for purchases through licensed gun dealers, no check is required for private sales, such as those through online or print ads or gun shows.
1:13am
it's a major problem. >> even though fixing the background check loophole is presented as kind of a no-brainer by most people participating in the gun reform debate, you should know that the nra is vehemently opposed to fixing the loophole, often for reasons it has a hard time explaining, which became clear today in this weird moment between judiciary committee chairman pat leahy and wayne la pier. watch. >> do you still as in 1999 still support mandatory background checks at gun shows? yes or no. >> we supported the national check system on dealers. we were here when one of your colleagues held the hearings in terms of who would be a dealer and who would be required to have a license. if you did it for livelihood and profit, yes. if you were a hobbyist, no. >> let's make it easier, though. i'm talking about gun shows.
1:14am
should we have mandatory background check at gun shows for sales of weapons? >> if you're dealer, that's already the law. >> that's not my question, please, mr. lapierre. i'm not trying to play games here. but if you could, just answer my question. >> senator, i do not believe the way the law is working now unfortunately that it does any good to extend the law to private sales between hobbyists and collectors. >> okay. so you do not support mandatory background checks in all instances at gun shows? >> we do not. >> don't make me say it, we do not. the reason why wayne lapierre is physically squirming there, the reason he is trying really hard not to answer that question in an excerptable sound bite-friendly way that's going to turn up in an ad to damn politicians who might associate themselves with his group is because if wayne lapierre is paying attention, and i bet he is, he knows the nra stands very much alone in this country in
1:15am
opposing universal background checks for buying a gun. the last cbs news/"new york times" poll showed that nine out of ten americans, 92% support universal background checks for buying a gun. among nra members, his own members, 86% believe that anybody buying a gun should have to undergo a background check. which is why wayne lapierre does not want to answer a straight question about it. 86% of my members want this, but i'm against it because i'm a -- hey, nice tie. let's move on. after the president unveiled the administration's list of proposed reforms related to gun violence, the conventional wisdom was, and still is to a great extent, ah, this is doomed. there is no way any of this can get done. but pressure, public pressure is working in certain corners of the gun policy debate. and one of those corners may end up being specifically universal background checks, the centerpiece of what the president has proposed there is consensus building in washington that outside of the fringiest fringe in the gun debate, the fringiest fringe, we're talking
1:16am
14% of nra membership at best? outside of that fringe, everybody agrees that we need to fix the background check loophole. pretty much everyone agrees if you want a gun, you should undergo a background check regardless of where you are buying that gun. and now quietly a bipartisan group of u.s. senators are working on legislation to finally fix it. republicans tom coburn and mark kirk, along with democrats charles schumer and joe manchin are working together to do that. and yes, that's joe manchin, joe "'a'" rating from the nra, i'm so proud of the nra" manchin, now working on a proposal to extend background checks. we spoke with both senator kirk's office and senator manchin's office tonight about who else might be part. both offices independently stressed that this truly is a bipartisan effort, that is realistic. republicans are thinking they
1:17am
might want this too. is public pressure on this one issue, is public opinion on this one issue so lopsided that this finally is a no-brainer policy, no matter how cynical the beltway feels about it? join us now is senator richard blumenthal of connecticut, who has introduced the ammunition background check of 2013. senator blumenthal, it's really nice to have you here. thank you for being here. >> thank you, rachel. >> at today's hearing was there a moment when you felt like the politics were moving, that we're actually making progress on the issue? >> certainly gabby giffords' appearance was absolutely riveting, a high point, dramatic and powerful moment for the entire committee, republicans and democrats, the strength and courage that it took for her to do this first public appearance. "be bold, be courageous, americans are counting on you." that moment i think will stay with many of us for a long time and inspire us. but i think also some of those
1:18am
weird moments, like the one you cited and an equally weird one, if i may say, when wayne lapierre tried to explain why he was against background checks, which is that the criminals won't comply with them. well, of course the criminals won't comply with them, because they won't go to the dealers or to private sales to buy weapons if they know they're going to be background checks. and if that law is combined with one that goes after straw purchases and gun trafficking, it can have an enormous effect, not only on firearms purchases, but also ammunition purchases. remember, it's against the law right now for felons, fugitives, as well as drug addicts, seriously mentally ill people, and domestic abusers to buy both firearms and ammunition. and background checks are a law enforcement tool, a simple commonsense way to enforce the law. and again, wayne lapierre has a hard time explaining. he was really back on his heels in this hearing several times.
1:19am
why he does not favor better enforcement of existing laws when that's been their mantra for so long. >> that is -- i'm glad you put it that way. that's exactly what the fight ended up being about today, and from today on what it's going to be. it's not about who is allowed or disallowed to have a gun. those laws stay the same. what changes is whether or not we agree to catch people who are already legally prohibited from having guns, but we have no way of catching them before they get them now. i feel like both stylistically and in terms of the nra's ability to hold up their side of the argument,that's changed. do you think that's going to manifest adds republican senators coming to your side of this issue? >> i think it will.
1:20am
i think that it will have a profoundly important effect, partly because the law enforcement community as you saw from chief johnson's testimony, and he was speaking on behalf of many, many law enforcement people through the association he represents, are saying we need background checks to better enforce the law, to protect ordinary people, and also to protect the police who are out there in the trenches on the
1:21am
front lines and who are often outgunned by criminals who can buy these firearms with impunity. and by the way, no one is contending there shouldn't be better enforcement of existing laws. i was a former federal prosecutor, u.s. attorney in connecticut, and i tried to enforce gun laws there need to be more resources for this effort. but this kind of law will actually save resources and save lives. and i think it will help to turn the tide. and in the last show last week, you made some very, very compelling statistics available about the people. 90% favor background checks. 80% favor background checks. 90% on firearms. 80% on ammunition purchases. so the american public is moving on this issue. i think it can be the centerpiece for other measures as well like the ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips. >> senator richard blumenthal of connecticut, who, again, has introduced the background checks for ammunition bill. senator, please keep us posted as this continues to move forward. thanks for being here tonight, sir. >> thank you, rachel. >> all right. the united states senate, while we're talking about it, the united states senate set a record today. also, there is a huge development in one of the wars in our world. also, we have a very important chart that imitates life that may undue the agita you felt this morn. if you are against women against violence act, what does that mean you are for? we have a lot coming up this hour. please stay with us. [ lane ] are you growing old
1:22am
1:23am
1:24am
waiting for your wrinkle cream to work? neutrogena® rapid wrinkle repair has the fastest retinol formula. to visibly reduce fine lines and wrinkles in just one week. map time!
1:25am
map time! here is the part of the world where more than anywhere else you need to be looking at a map to understand what's going on there in the news on any given day. for reference, here is where our current war is. that's afghanistan. now, the eight and a half yearlong war that we just finished up, that was here. oh, what's that one big country right in between our two wars? that would be iran, and we know why the u.s. feels antsy about iran. this shows in part why iran feels antsy about us.
1:26am
mostly because of the impact of our iraq war, iran now exerts considerable influence in iraq. iran also has considerable influence in lebanon and the terrorist group hezbollah that operates out of lebanon. lebanon not only has a big board were israel, lebanon also has a big border with syria. and syria, of course, is embroiled in a raging and brutal civil war. look where the capital city of syria is relative to this map. look how close it is to lebanon and to israel, this ravaged capital city in this horrible ongoing war. and it is that geography that explains why there was an international gasp and shock today when this headline crossed, that israel had sent planes to bomb inside syria. or maybe it was on the border between syria and lebanon, depending on which headline you read and who they had asked for information on the ground. but if israel is sending bombers now deep into syria, or just over the border, does that mean this war inside syria, this two-year-old awful civil war has just gone international? specifically, has it become a war that involves israel too?
1:27am
and at least iranian interests, if not iran itself? did a much bigger war just start? joining us now from cairo is ayman mohyeldin. it's really nice of you to be here, especially staying up so late. what do we know about this today, especially where it was? >> well, we can start off with what we officially know from the sources of those that we have been speaking to. one, the syrian government has come out confirming the air strike did take place. it does not say it happened along the border.
1:28am
>> it does not say it took place targeting a convoy, but rather at a research facility northwest of damascus. it also confirmed that two people were killed, five were injured, and there was substantial material damage. we also know from the lebanese government that in fact israeli airplanes violated lebanese airspace multiple times on
1:29am
wednesday in an attempt to suggest that israeli airplanes flew in the direction of syria. we haven't heard yet from hezbollah. their media has been silent. they have not confirm anything that has happened as a result of what we've been reporting on today. and we've also learned from the united states government that in fact israel carried out air strikes targeting a convoy that was carrying weapons to hezbollah. we haven't heard anything from
1:30am
the israeli government. so you can see on that map that you just pointed out, a lot of players, a lot of different mixed signals. >> we don't generally expect to hear israel cop to do things like this. in the past when they have done things not exactly like this, but similar to this, they generally make a policy of not announcing it. in 2007, when israel bombed a nuclear reactor in syria, neither israel nor syria said that it happened. and it was widely viewed that
1:31am
1:32am
1:33am
1:34am
syria not admitting that that strike had happened sort of gave them more of a pass than thigh they might otherwise have had in terms of retaliating. the fact that syria is confirming that this happened today, does that mean that there is going to be some sort of next step, either syria is going to do something or hezbollah is going to do something or iran is going to do something? >> well, you know, in the past, the policy has been kind of intentionally ambiguous. that's how many of the regional players like to keep it so they aren't forced into a corner and have to come out and react. in recent days, the iranian government has said that an attack on syria would be considered an attack on iran. now, to what extent that is going to be tested remains to be seen. we know that in the past, hezbollah has also defended syria and has said that it would in any case if it felt that it was being attacked also join the fight there to defend its sovereignty and lebanese sovereignty. so really, it's a matter of interpretation. and as you said, s offici for example, consultants advising republican members of congress to not use favorite phrases like "send them all back", or "electric fence." huh, you think? but that is not the only language-specific instructions that republicans are giving each other right now. conservatives are not just telling each other not to call american children "anchor babies." conservatives are also advising each other on how to talk about ladies. very specific advice. you know this is going to be good. that's coming up. adam serwer at mother jones
1:35am
magazine had the perfect headline this afternoon to members in be a record. still, i [ female announcer ] going to sleep may be easy, but when you wake up in the middle of the night it can be frustrating. it's hard to turn off and go back to sleep. intermezzo is the first and only prescription sleep aid approved for use as needed in the middle of the night when you can't get back to sleep. it's an effective sleep medicine you don't take before bedtime. take it in bed only when you need it and have at least four hours left for sleep. do not take intermezzo if you have had an allergic reaction to drugs containing zolpidem, such as ambien. allergic reactions such as shortness of breath or swelling of your tongue or throat may occur and may be fatal. intermezzo should not be taken if you have taken another sleep medicine at bedtime or in the middle of the night or drank alcohol that day. do not drive or operate machinery until at least 4 hours after taking intermezzo and you're fully awake. driving, eating, or engaging in other activities
1:36am
while not fully awake without remembering the event the next day have been reported. abnormal behaviors may include aggressiveness, agitation, hallucinations, or confusion. alcohol or taking other medicines that make you sleepy may increase these risks. in depressed patients, worsening of depression, including risk of suicide, may occur. intermezzo, like most sleep medicines, has some risk of dependency. common side effects are headache, nausea, and fatigue. so if you suffer from middle-of-the-night insomnia, ask your doctor about intermezzo and return to sleep again. ♪
1:37am
adam serwer at mother jones
1:38am
magazine had the perfect headline this afternoon to encapsulate today's good news/bad news in the united states senate. with the announcement that the appointee to fill the john kerry senate see would be a man named mo cowan. that means, hurrah, as you see here, that the u.s. senate will now have more black members than ever in its history, which is great news, right? and here is the rest of the headline. the new record number of black members in the united states senate is two. a total of two out of 100. that's the record. we've hit the record. it is a remarkably low number to be a record. still, interestingly, this appointment to the u.s. senate today is actually the second one that governor deval patrick of massachusetts has made as massachusetts governor. when senator ted kennedy died in office, the governor made a similar choice for the appointment to that seat when he chose, also like mo cowan, a trusted former staffer who had no designs on running for the seat himself. and if you think about that, it's actually a pretty
1:39am
respectful way to handle the profoundly anti-democratic process of one person just getting to designate a person to be a u.s. senator because there
1:40am
is a vacancy.
1:41am
we don't generally do that for the house, right? but we do that for the senate, which is a kind of grossly undemocratic thing about the u.s. senate. and when a governor is given this grossly undemocratic power to be the individual designator of who gets to hold a seat in the u.s. senate, how that governor chooses to use that power says a lot about that governor in terms of his or her ethics. they can, as deval patrick did both times, they can appoint a real place holder to neutrally care-take the seat until an election can be held, an election that is not going to be affected by whoever this neutral place holder is. that's how deval patrick has now done this twice. or, alternatively, a governor can choose someone to appoint to the u.s. senate who actually intends to run to keep the spot. thereby just granting that person the power and advantage
1:42am
of incumbency for the u.s. senate seat for any future race. and that's what south carolina governor nikki haley did when she got the profound di undemocratic power to appoint
1:43am
someone to a senate seat in her state. she picked congressman tim scott, who intends to run to keep that seat. run governor taking maximum advantage of her chance to put her individual thumb on the scale of democracy, and one governor refusing to do that.
1:44am
staying neutral before the will of the voters. this kind of thing is a test of political character, i've always
1:45am
thought. just ask rod blagojevich when he gets out of prison. in any case, the election to pick a full-time nonplace holder replacement for john kerry in the senate now has a date. it will be on june 25th in massachusetts. but massachusetts may find itself voting on that seat before then. and that's because we're told to expect that tomorrow conservative democratic congressman stephen lynch, who you see on the right side of the screen there, who voted against obama care and who is anti-abortion, stephen lynch is going to announce that he too is going to run for the seat as a democratic against the already declared progressive candidate congressman ed markey. if he does run against ed markey, there does have to be a primary. the primary will take place on april 30th. interesting question, right? would a primary for that seat help the democrats' chances of sending another democrat to serve alongside elizabeth warren in the senate, or would it hurt the chances? and who would have a better chance at winning, ed markey or stephen lynch? on the republican sid of things, there is still no word as to whether or not this guy on the right here intends to run again after elizabeth warren beat him by eight points back in november. still no word from scott brown other than -- which scott brown tweeted late at night on scott brown, 2010 in that special election is the only time since ed brook in 1972 that massachusetts has elected a republican to the senate. and not since 1994 in the gingrich landslide when two slipped in have massachusetts elected a republican to federal office of any kind. >> and there is a reason why. and the state is getting more blue, not less blue over time. >> right. >> let me ask you about a broader picture. "the miami herald" reported on an fbi raid on the office of a long-time supporter of new jersey democratic senator bob menendez. the senator is denying any wrongdoing. but is that rattling new jersey politics enough? is there enough noise around
1:46am
senator bob menendez that potentially his seat is worth thinking about on either side? >> there is a lot of concern, yes, among democrats there is a lot of confusion about what exactly has happened here. it's worth pointing out that menendez has sort of been down this road before. it did not involve prostitution or anything sa for his seat, it leaked from the u.s. attorney's office, that would be u.s. attorney chris christie, it leaked that menendez was under federal investigation, and records had been subpoenaed from his nonprofit, supposedly. no charges ever emerged from that. finally five years later, a different u.s. attorney cleared bob menendez. so he has been down this road before that said, if there is something to this, if there is something that forces him to resign, we'll find out over the next few months, this is an appointment that chris christie, a republican governor would make there is all different kind of ways he could handle a election.
1:47am
it could potentially take place on general election day 2013 when chris christie currently with an approval rate of 74% will also been to the ballots. circumstances where a republican candidate could be helped. if you call around new jersey who would they run if there was a special election, their dream candidate, the name you hear is woody johnson. that's the owner of the new york jets and one of mitt romney's big backers. i don't know if he is interested at all, but he would bring a lot of money to the race.
1:48am
1:49am
1:50am
1:51am
okay. chart imitates life, straight ahead. chart imitates life, all right, it is never a good thing to see economic headlines that feature the word surprise, or unexpected, or yikes, within a few words of shrink or contract. but this morning it happened. the economy shrunk this last
1:52am
quarter for the first time since 2009. very small, 0.1%, but still all surprise, yikes, eek, because nobody was expecting it. analysts thought that the national gdp was going to grow, but it shrunk instead. maybe the number will get changed, you never know. turns out the really interesting thing about today's terrifying shrinkage announcement is why it happened. this is defense spending over time. kind of random, in one quarter, defense spending goes up and down, all over the map. that doesn't say anything about defense policy, just a characteristic of how the pentagon spends. it happens in fits and starts for a bunch of different reasons. the defense spending chart is what economics geeks call lumpy. but when it gets lumpy, drops sharply, gdp goes down. the last big dip on the defense spending chart there, the really big dip there? that is last quarter, the one where we had the overall gr congres m to instr oh, this is s
1:53am
crime, stop. looking back on the latest electoral defeat, the republican strategists are clearly deciding they don't want to be known for having hard line politics that make them talk about women in ways that are creepy. which is why you're seeing the urging of republicans by other republicans to stop front-paging these believes. basically they're saying, even if you think it, try not to say the government should force rape victims to give birth against their will. congressmen, you can think it but not say it. does all the language sensitivity training mean that republicans see themselves as having a policy problem with women, or do they think they just have a language problem with women? and that is the question that looms over the house right now as republicans face legislation that forces them to act on a
1:54am
piece of legislation that has a very blunt, straightforward aim, it is called the violence against women act. for years, ever since it was passed, the violence against women act has been a bipartisan bill, routinely modernized without notification. until last year, republicans decided to stand up against the violence against women act. all eight senate republicans voted no on it when i came through committee. and when it came up for a vote in the senate, republicans voted against the by a 2-1 margin. and house republicans killed the bill altogether, that was the last congress, before inauguration. now it is the new congress. and now the issue is back, and democrats in the senate are fast-tracking it. senate republicans seem to just be prepared to let it quietly pass, but it does have to go through the house. and so house republicans have to resolve this looming what have the to deal is the problem just the tal t or is the problem, dude, you' killing the violen [ beeping ] these are great! [ beeping ] how are you, um, how are you doing? i'm going to keep looking over here. probably a good idea. ken: what's a good idea? nothing. with coverage checker, it's easy to find your perfect policy. visit progressive.com today.
1:55am
1:56am
1:57am
right before president obama's inauguration last week, house republicans held a private two and a half day retreat in williamsburg, virginia, the idea to strategize and prepare for congress. in that meeting they were taught important lessons on how to talk to voters of the lady's persuasion. here is how it was described. the pollster drew rave reviews, where she lectured the members on how to appeal to women. sources say hundreds of republicans sat through the talk, hoping to better learn how to talk to women. most importantly, they were told to tread carefully on matters, particularly on sensitive matters such as rape, which she called a four-letter word, which should be used sparingly or not at all. don't say rape, ever.
1:58am
they're getting more instructions, where suzanne b is launching a program that is designed to keep candidates and lawmakers to stop making comments that may have helped ruin the republicans' chances of winning the senate. oh, right, comments about which kinds of rape are legitimate and which kinds are not, or how god wants some rapists to get women pregnant. one spokesperson boiled it down like this. this is simple, if you're about to talk about rape as anything other than a horrible and brutal crime, stop. looking back on the latest electoral defeat, the republican strategists are clearly deciding they don't want to be known for having hard line politics that make them talk about women in ways that are creepy.
1:59am
which is why you're seeing the urging of republicans by other republicans to stop front-paging these believes. basically they're saying, even if you think it, try not to say the government should force rape victims to give birth against their will. congressmen, you can think it but not say it. does all the language sensitivity training mean that republicans see themselves as having a policy problem with women, or do they think they just have a language problem with women? and that is the question that looms over the house right now as republicans face legislation that forces them to act on a piece of legislation that has a very blunt, straht